On Fri, Jul 17, 2015 at 03:53:09PM +0200, Benny Lofgren wrote:
> On 2015-07-17 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> > The phrase "No label changes." was selected because it is true
> > (there is nothing to save). I don't see what "further" adds to make
> > this more accurate or understandable.
>
> Perha
On 2015-07-17 08:57, Theo de Raadt wrote:
> The phrase "No label changes." was selected because it is true
> (there is nothing to save). I don't see what "further" adds to
> make this more accurate or understandable.
I would even argue that adding "further" makes it more INaccurate and
also adds
>This is another trivial patch, but I've always found the disklabel
>message "No label changes" confusing. For example, if you print (p), add
>a label (a), write (w), print to check your changes (p), and then quit
>(q), it seems odd to be told "No label changes".
>
>
>
>Index: sbin/disklabel/edito
> This is another trivial patch, but I've always found the disklabel
> message "No label changes" confusing. For example, if you print (p), add
> a label (a), write (w), print to check your changes (p), and then quit
> (q), it seems odd to be told "No label changes".
Well, the current message mak
This is another trivial patch, but I've always found the disklabel
message "No label changes" confusing. For example, if you print (p), add
a label (a), write (w), print to check your changes (p), and then quit
(q), it seems odd to be told "No label changes".
Index: sbin/disklabel/editor.c
